In terms of “brand,”so to speak, Sanders is gold, and Clinton is poison. That’s just the numbers. All of the networks know how popular Sanders is, and are in a hurry to conceal it. Why? It doesn’t drop demand.

Based on a dipshit Bibi-fellating New York politician convinced that support of a boycott movement against Israeli companies constitutes a criminal act, this app was humbly proposed. In the Old South, authorities tried to punish blacks that participated in the bus boycotts, so they tried to arrest any black people they saw walking. It backfired. An app like this could automatically boycott businesses behind this attack on free speech.

Clearly this political science Rainman evaluated the risk of retaliatory New York City boycotts and figured the tourist industry was invulnerable.

It would be like Buycott but automatically list and target a given show’s commercial sponsors. It would be a direct social media connection with marketers. Consumers are now aware of smear campaigns after a show has aired, and can do something about it.

For example, the app would list sponsors for any given show. A car insurance company, a car company, a restaurant, a product, or any business with an online presence and social media connection could be notified and/or temporarily or permanently blocked from an online purchase since it integrates with the desktop or laptop.

Advertisers can weigh the advantages of buying air time on neutral shows, and avoid the divisive propaganda channels.

Truth be told the whole marketing thing is an unpleasant analogy, but it needs to be used for the target audience here, the network sponsors, to understand:

Negative trending on social media would be noted by sponsors in real time, and they could determine if a host’s sagging popularity or bias is affecting a product brand. For example, the Bernie Sanders movement is now a global phenomenon. It is, indeed, a revolution. It is very easy to see which hosts are attacking an opportunity; an audience for a product, and act accordingly. Some of these hosts, through bias, have become marketing poison. In terms of “branding” and “consumers,” so to speak, Sanders is gold, as non-GMO products are now; and Clinton is poison. That’s just the numbers. All of the networks know how popular Sanders is, and are in a hurry to conceal it. But why? The data is there, however, and self-evident. If they managed to convince Americans that Sanders was doomed we would see Clinton in the top picture and Sanders in the bottom in the pictures below.

In other words, ignoring Sanders is bad for business and associating your brand with those with who attack his movement is foolish. That is the Warren Effect.

Sanders has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he has a large, international following and if he endorses someone, they prosper, and if he condemns another, that person fails.

Sanders

Clinton

The app warns marketers to avoid that show because an audience will simultaneously have direct access to the sponsors themselves. It will also have a means to prevent the purchase of a given product.

The Clinton brand is so toxic, for instance, that bumper stickers for Hillary don’t even use her name. It’s just an H with “America” next to it. It is the same as with the Bush name, when Jeb Bush just went by “Jeb” because he knew he was tied to a toxic brand. It’s interesting to see how many Clinton stickers I’ve seen in a state where she supposedly won in a landslide. All I saw was Bernie, consistent with the stadium crowds in California, and every parking lot had several. I only saw one Hillary sticker so far, after all these months, and it was the loneliest bumper sticker I ever saw. That too, was consistent with the size of Hillary’s audiences. There’s still 2 million votes to count, however, which would actually determine the true outcome.

“The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return… because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians,it is journalists too. We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war. …” Udo Ulfkotte, CIA German Press Asset (NOC), Sep. 2014. Outing himself, Udo paid for these warnings with his life in January of 2017.

Rare Candor from the Corporate Media

"There is no such thing... in America, as an independent press... If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes... Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” John Swinton, New York Times Chief Editor 1880